When will our Premier keep his promise of water?

You know it's a funny thing politics, it makes one feel all powerful alongside the feeling of impending doom.

So as soon as a party is elected, instead of running the state, they plan for the next election so that they have a better chance of holding on to power.

Now, it's my naive opinion that if the Pollies did what they said they were going to do then we the public, the voters would vote them back in again. It makes sense. The Pollie says "We will, when we are elected, feed the hungry and abolish all child poverty and create full employment. Blah, blah, blah..." Now just suppose that by some sort of incredible and yet unbelievable miracle, we believed this Pollie and when he takes up the government role he takes the bull by the horns and within the second year of being in office the government accomplishes it's goal of having full employment, no child is living in poverty and the soup kitchen lines are no longer used.

Would you vote for them at the end of their term to re-govern us? I would and I wouldn't care if they were Lib. Lab, Greens, Democrats or National party. They would get my vote because they did what they said they were going to do

So why do Pollies believe that we the public, the voters are so stupid that they will promise anything to get into power?

Here's a question. Why can't Pollies answer a question with a yes or a no? They have been pulled up by radio and TV announcers on numerous occasions and they still arrogantly refuse t answer with a yes or a no. Why? because they believe that's what we want. Isn't it about time we put them in their place? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they work for us?

It's my opinion that Pollies lie because they think that they need to. It's their belief that we expect them to lie or to promise us things that they know are unattainable.

They also believe that we will accept those lies. Why do they believe that will accept their lies?

Because, dear reader, that's just what we do. We set out to the polling booth believing nothing that the pollies have promised us.

Our mind set is that Polititions are going to lie to us. Now that is a very sorry state to be in.

If we don't expect our Polititions to tell us the truth or if we don't believe the spiel they are spinning us, why don't we take them to task over it. After all they are in our employ not the other way round. Polititions work for us. And when they lie about projects real or imaginary they are telling us that they have no respect for us.

You may or may not be familiar with the problem we are having with the river Murray.

Well let me fill you in with what I think about this situation:

a. While John Howard was Prime Minister does anyone remember the 10 million dollars he was given to solve the Murray problem. Where is the $10 million? If it's spent where is the water that he promised. It never arrived.

b. Just recently it was recorded in the Sunday Mail that our Premier Mike Rann had just negotiated with the water holders up river for them to release 175 Gl of water down the river. Then last week we hear one of the water protection minsters has negotiated a sweet deal with the Water Retainers in NSW and in Vic and that sweet deal is that 175 Gl of water will be sent down the river and into the lower lakes. That's a guaranteed 175 Gl into the lower lakes.

Now, Premier Rann says that he's negotiated a set deal and the Water Protection Minister has negotiated a sweet deal then we should be getting 175 gl + 175 gl + the excess water which the minister said was to guarantee the 175 gl that is to flow into the lower lakes I calculate that to be 350+gl of water coming down the Murray.

Well I say where is the water? They say it takes months for the water to flow through the Murray Darling basin. but does anyone remember how long ago the floods came to Southern Queensland and NSW? Well it must be at least 6 months. So where is the water?

Who is holding all that flood water?

While our Pollies play politics with our lives someone up river is hoarding water and our state government don't really care about the water in the Murray. They are so short sighted and because it doesn't concern them. That's right it doesn't concern the Pollies because when they retire after only working 9 years in government they will retire with a hefty pension and a superannuation that will see them set up for life and able to buy the water that will not be flowing down the river but will have to be bought from an overseas profiteer for exorbitant prices that you and I on a pension won't be able to afford. That's right the desalination plant or rather one of the many will be financed by overseas investors.

Anyway back to the water from the Murray.

The Murray is in very poor condition. The people who live and make a living on the Murray know what's happening but are they heard? The pollies come down in their droves when there is a photo opportunity (take note of how many times you see Mike Rann near the river if there's

a camera nearby) and they do the lie bit and tell us what they think we want to hear then they leave and, believe me they don't give the river another thought.

Our pollies think more about a bike race than they do about being responsible government. They think more about getting their pictures in the press than they do about creating a state that we are not selling to overseas business.

I believe that we have more clout with the government that we have ever had before. We can clog heir email in boxes with emails about our concerns. And it doesn't take long for a reply either. I know I've done it.

The future of Prophecy

Welcome back to the blog.

Well I'm sitting here in front of this screen trying to decide what to say this week. Well, not really what to say but how to say it.

I was going to recap my last entry but that would be a waste of time because you should read it rather than me re-opinion it. (That's not a real word i just made it up)

Malachi Is the last book in the OT and in it we read how God is fed up with the priests for the sloppy way they treat God. 2:1ff

Why don't you take a minute or two and read the whole of Malachi it's only 4 chapters long and only has 3 pages. OK I'll wait for you.

Malachi was written about 400BC and if you have read it you probably got the idea that it is God's final message to Israel. He's telling them to cleanup their act or else. Chapter 4:6 contains the or else. verse 6 ...or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.

1. Or else

2. I will come

There is no third option. God says mend your ways or I will come.

But it would seem that God wanted to play fair. It seems that he wanted to warn them and warn them and warn them. He was going to give them every chance to change their ways. Remember that God had been doing this since he brought the nation into being. So he says in Malachi 4:5 "See I will send you the Prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." then he tells them "He (Elijah) will turn the hearts..." etc.

But isn't Elijah with God 2 Kings 2:11,12. Yes but not dead. The OT records show Elijah as having been taken up to God but it says nowhere that he died.

I want you to note that in Malachi God is angry at the priests and if you read through the NT Jesus doesn't call the common people vipers and all those other things. Jesus is angry with the spiritual leaders. Who are the ones who oppose Jesus' teaching and healing? Not the common people but the leaders and teachers and priests.

In the last part of Malachi ch 4; God says "I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes"

Now if Elijah didn't come then we are still waiting for that day aren't we. Well Israel is anyway. I say Elijah did come. Matt 17:10-13 and it's clear in verse 12 where Jesus says "But I tell you Elijah has already come..." then the disciples understood that Jesus was talking about John the Baptizer. But maybe you need more proof. Matt 11:13-15 says that if you accept it he is the Elijah who was to come. Who was this person? John the baptizer..

This passage is also proof that the Law and the Prophets have been fulfilled. Matt 11:13 says clearly "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Are you one of the Christians who still believe that Jesus is still coming ie. in his second coming?

Why is Jesus coming back a second time?

Just one more thing:

Luke 21:22 Jesus is speaking to his disciples when he says in verse 20 " When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

It didn't read "when those in the future...

He said When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies you will know that its desolation is near. Then verse 22 says clearly "For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written"

So where does that leave us now?

Do you still say that prophecy isn't fulfilled?

Next time I'm going to write about the last days. Just how long were the last days

Did Jesus come only to the Jews

Some more on why I think that Jesus came in AD70

Jesus is quite clear when He tells his disciples in Matt 5:17 - 20 that he didn't come to abolish the law and the prophets. No, he says I have come to fulfill the law and the prophets.

A little explanation for those who don't know. (those who do know can put your feet up for a minute or two.)

The Old Testament was never written for the Gentiles (People who were not Jews. People like you and me) Therefore it was written for the Jews. We were never commanded to follow the Law. The Law was given to Jews by God through Moses. This is the Law that Jesus came to fulfill. The one we know as containing the 10 commandments. It wasn't only the 10 commandments that were contained in th law. There were laws about how sacrifices, laws about how to treat non Jews in your home There were laws on almost everything but none of them were written for us, the gentiles. Now what some people forget is that the New Testament isn't a part of the Old Testament. One person tried to tell me that it was an extension of the Old Testament. Well it isn't an extension of the Old Testament although some of it's writings such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written concerning the time of the OT but they were not written in the time of the OT they were probably written sometime after but before the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.

Confused yet?

I hope I've made it clear that the OT laws were written for the Jews and only for the Jews. Now Jesus mentions the Law and the Prophets.

So what were the prophets that Jesus says he came to fulfill.

I don't have the space here or the time to go into all the prophets but I' try to explain them as well and as unconfusing (if there is such a word) as possible

The Prophets were men and women sent by God to warn the Jews of impending calamities, or Judgments that were coming on them. God also used Prophets to correct peoples behaviours. In other words they were God's messengers to the Jews. Not to the Gentiles (You and I) Daniel was a prophet if you get the chance to read Daniel it's a very interesting book

Jesus said that he had come to fulfill the law and the prophets.

So what is the difference between abolishing the law and the prophets and

fulfilling the law and the prophets?

What would Jesus do to abolish the law and the prophets? Well I really don't know because he didn't abolish them. He could have passed a law stating that the law was now abolished and so too the prophets. You see I don't know how he would do it because he didn't do it. He said I haven't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it so too the prophets.

Now what do you do to fulfill the law and the prophets?

What does fulfill mean? My Funk and Wagnalls says that to fulfill means to bring about the accomplishment of something. With out making you think that I know more than I do the Greek word used in this particular passage means quite simply to "fill up" or to "make full" that's all it means.

So, Jesus was going to bring about the accomplishment of the law and the prophets.

Jesus also says in Matt: 5'18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished".

I have heard it said by those who say that the law is still to be abolished that Matt 5:18 proves that Jesus didn't accomplish all that he had planned to do because Matt 5 says that it wouldn't be accomplished until heaven and earth had passed away.

But is that what it's saying?

It sounds to me like he's emphasizing the importance and the completeness of what he has come to do. He is saying also that it will be completely fulfilled or nothing will be done. He 's saying that he would not take the slightest stroke of a pen and not the smallest letter will be taken away until everything is accomplished.

So Jesus is saying quite clearly here that the law would not change in the smallest way until all of it had been fulfilled. Or as Matt 5 puts it until everything is accomplished.

I've labored that point a bit.

But there is one more scripture that I'd like to look at Matt 15:24 Jesus says here "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (Jews)"

If Jesus had said "I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel" it could have had a different meaning but he say's. "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel" And that word "Only' makes it exclusive.

It means he wasn't sent to the Gentiles.

I'll leave it there and take it up again next week

Terry